I recently did some photography for a football game. One key skill I learned, and this is what the professional photographers do: to be good at it, to capture the shots that separate your shots from the rest of the people holding cameras, you have to have your eyes open and see 5-10 seconds into the play. You have to constantly predict where the ball might be next. This is not guessing. It takes knowledge of the domain and constant practice. With this said, I believe predicting your customer/user's needs for tomorrow is just as crucial to designing for the current need. To stay relevant, competitive, needed, and wanted, you have to think outside of the "current" box. Forecast market trends, your domain's paradigm shifts, and your target user market is key to play both in the today and tomorrow. Your research has to be dynamic and the product constantly iterated. We all know what happened to RIM and many other companies.
10 insights on User Experience Design:
- Experience is temporal. Remove temporality from experience and there is really no experience.
- The thing being experienced is not a given. That thing is part of the interpretation.
- Every human experience is a unique experience. No two experiences are the same. As a designer you must accept that as a foundation for everything you do. Experience is very subjective. You never really know if you will be "successful" or not in delivering a particular experience.
- As a designer, you can either create an experience or support an experience.
- It's not an experience if it does't have aesthetic qualities.
- If you have an experience, it is changing you.
- Experience takes energy--if you don't want people to spend energy on a design, each time they experience it, be careful how you design it.
- Energy involves focus...involves surrender....involves time....it is a lot of work. Think of music for example. If you ask someone to listen to to music he or she doesn't normally listen to, it takes more energy for them to "get it".
- As a designer, accept that traditional scientifc experiments do not always "work" for experience design. "In the early stages of HCI, people had this idea that if we can just figure out how people work, exactly in detail how people react to everything (psychology), if we can figure out the machinery of human beings then we can create guidelines on what and how to design to get the desired response. This was the focus of HCI for about 20 years up to the mid 1990s. This might work for a scientific experience but if you are a designer, that's not possible really. It will be too difficult and it does not work. The other way of doing is to try to understand the material of interaction, the design. What you can do then is to take all different design interactions and see what happens and study the output experience to map out every little change in the design and its resulting experience (Stolterman)."
- My personal interpretation of experience:
(E)xperience = (A)ctivity + (P)erception
(Ac)tivity = (TI)me + (I)nteraction
(P)erception = (C)ognition + (I)nteraction
Experience = (T + I) + (C + I)
The following blog post was adapted from notes I took in Dr. Stolterman's Experience Design course a couple of years ago.
Facebook recently acquired Instagram for $1 billion in cash and stock. To make a long story short, I think that's amazing. However, the obsession with the purchase is sickening. I enjoy reading tech news but looking at some of the top tech news lately, I am realizing how obsessed the Western culture is with technology, the web, and mobile apps.
Yes, if you are in the tech industry, the Instagram purchase is an interesting piece of news. But what does it say about our values when our top news sources place this much importance on this little cool billion dollar app, and continue to do so days later after the purchase. Does Instagram really deserve days of media coverage by some of our top news sources including the Washington Post, Mashable, CNN, Reuters, New York Times, and dozens of other smaller tech news sources?
I do not want to play the grinch here, but I am not surpised with the media attention Instagram has received and this obsession is pervasive throughout our society. Tools that are meant to "improve" our lives and enhance our experiences of everyday life have become our greatest problems. From mobile device usage while driving (which results in thousands of deaths a year in the U.S. alone) to skewed priorities and mismanagement of time due to the narcistic overusage of online social networking, it is becoming more evident that the value we place on different technologies, in the long run will determine the effects these technologies have on us.
If you want to make a difference in the world, it's about time to quit obsessing over the meaningless. Technology is a powerful tool and has indubitably impacted life to varying degrees. But I hardly doubt that Instagram and/or Facebook is going to help curb the effects of poverty at home and abroad, war in third world countries, homelessness, social and political reform, education, etc. And individuals' obsession with Instagram, Facebook, and similar tools will definitely not contribute to personal growth and productivity. If anything, these tools can be the bane of our existence.
All I am saying is: there are deeper and more meaningful ways with which technology can impact the world around us. Instagram is necessarily not one of them. Let us not get caught up in the "frenzy", the hype, the next gadget, the next app, the next tech or fashion trend . Don't allow yourself to be simply the consumer, constantly being fed by all the junk companies throw at you. Prioritize your usage of technology, mobile devices, apps, social networking and etc; and strive to be the producer of greater ideas and not solely the consumer of others' ideas.
How do you begin to institutionalize Human Computer Interaction (HCI) research, practice, and education beyond its predominantly Western roots and influence? I am neither talking about the creation of international standards for usability nor international HCI education.
I am talking about a complete overhaul of the field's current underlying assumptions, principles, and methodologies by a contributing body of non-western researches, practicioners, and students. Well, maybe an "overhaul" is not the right word. But the basic point is this: HCI, like many other fields, is traditionally founded on Western ideologies, culture, user behavior, etc. This is a good start--good as a foundational piece, a model, but not as an ultimate. HCI is yet to experience a broader diversity of users, researchers, practicioners, and students spanning all economic, cultural, and religious statuses.
But I do believe that institutionalizing HCI research, practice, and education across cultures requires the field to reach a higher level of growth and solidity. As we know it, the field is still developing. But I look forward to seeing the field benefit from a multi-cultural understanding of people and technology, and seeing developing countries innovate as well and advance in computing and HCI education as a result of embracing ethnocultural (culturally relevant) HCI principles and methodologies.
I am a multi-cultural student existing withinin the HCI field, and expressing an opinion.
This cellphone carries with it a unique context of use, meaning, and experience as it travels across different cultures. Sorry for the stereoptypical images of Africa, but you get the point. image source
User (Human) Experience is a topic in HCI focused on understanding the connection between people's intentions, emotions, the different variables of a "contextualized activity" and interaction with technology. Currently, the HCI field is rich in discourse and research on user experience, drawing upon several other disciplines such as psychology and sociology as we seek to understand the intersection between people and technology; and how technology can continually enrich lives and provide and/or support meaningful interaction and experiences.
To further discuss human experience, a quote from Ben Schneiderman, one of the pioneers of HCI and current professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Maryland, states "successful technologies are those that are in harmony with users' needs. They must support relationships and activities that enrich the users' experiences."
So once again, technology is seen as a support, a facilitator of an already existing human state. In my previous blog post, I mentioned that people do things for their own reasons and not the reasons that you give them. Additionally, we have to understand that the reasons people do things are connected to their emotional needs and states. People do things that align with how they are feeling at a certain moment, or how they would like to feel in a future moment. Although I do little justice in explaining the true essence of user experience in the previous sentence, I believe that most, if not all conscious human action can be framed within context of an emotive experience. This makes the study of human experience a difficult one due to the very subjective nature of people, emotion, and interaction. Maybe this is the reason why the HCI field in general is not used to dealing with the topic of human experience, as mentioned by McCarthy and Wright.
Don Norman, one of the early pioneers for User Experience, states that many everyday tasks are opportunistic and not planned. He goes on to state that "opportunistic actions are those in which the behavior takes advantage of the circumstances. Rather than engage in extensive planning and analysis, the person goes about the day's activities and performs the intended action if the relevant opportunity arises." Now this is hard to replicate in a traditional scientific lab environment and it is what makes the design of meaningful interactive technologies a relatively difficult task.
I believe that at this intersection (of people, experience, and technology), HCI thrives as a field in expanding and contracting upon its own and related fields' research, and offering insights and design implications for interactive technologies.
Designing successful and meaningful interactive technologies begins with an understanding of user human experience. I believe this understanding starts at the notion that people do things for their own reasons, not necessarily the reasons you as a designer give them.
Let's take a quick glance at a consumer-based example given by John McCarthy and Peter Wright. In the book titled Technology as Experience, the authors argue that "people develop their own paths around supermarkets, tactically resisting the architecture and advertisements designed to shape their shopping behavior."
The authors go on to say that people are not just passive consumers. In fact, "consumers appropriate the physical and conceptual space created by producers for their own interest and needs...consumers complete the experience for themselves(page 11)."
People do things for their own reasons, not the reasons you give them. These reasons are often connected their emotional state. As McCarthy and Wright put it, "interaction with technology is now as much about what people feel as it is about what people do."
People's actions actually carry deeper meaning--more meaning than what can be conveyed through a quantitative evaluation. A design's "usability" is great to consider but doesn't solely determine the value and experience delivered. This understanding was absent in the traditionally scientific approach of the first wave of HCI, which focused primarily on the quantifiable parameters of a system's usability.
Some aspects of human experience are studied and partially understood by other fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology to name a few. The HCI field is seeking to draw upon the aforementioned fields and its own research in contributing to a relatively new topic/sub-field known as User Experience.
I discuss more about User Experience in the next blog post.
There is the natural and there is the artificial. There is the world we live in and there is the "world" we create. However, as we create, innovate, and develop, the world we live in subsequently evolves.
For the past decades, we've witnessed the world coevolve with the advancement of technology. These technological innovations have brought many advancements in many different areas of life including communication, education, transportation, health, business, religion, and government to name a few. From the time we wake up to the time we go to sleep, computer technology shapes most of our interactions and experiences. Thus, it is safe to say that technology has greatly impacted people and life (mostly in good ways).
This is the reason I believe that all technology that is created is by default "human-centered"; whether it's apparent to the creator or not. It's hard to escape the fact that every technology that is created affects people directly and/or indirectly and negatively and/or positively. After all, we live in a real world, with real people. This very notion and understanding is at the core of the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) field.
HCI is grounded at the intersection of human experience and computer technology. On the human side, HCI seeks to understand people and their constructed meanings and experiences formed through interaction with others, the environment and artifacts in therewithin. So on one side, HCI is strongly grounded in people, social sciences, and psychology. On the other side, HCI is grounded in technology, engineering, and design.
HCI is about understanding and translating people's real world interaction and experience into their interaction and experience with computer technology. After all, the world of computer technology is different compared to the natural organic way of life. Thus, for technology to be truly Human-centered and meaningful to people and the world, one has to understand people and their environment--needs, wants, values, strengths, weaknesses, intentions, knowledge, place and space, behaviors, judgements, and all the innumerable facets that make people the complex beings that they are. This is where HCI thrives as a field and I believe this is what places HCI at the forefront of the future of technological innovation for the betterment of life.
I believe that good design moves from aspects of usability to understanding and designing for human experience. I believe that experience is a product of interaction and the rich attributes of a person interacting. The context of interaction is an important variable that affects the experience and outcome of the design. This context can be environmental, emotional, purpose of interaction, and etc.
As a designer, I have a platform to use technology as a tool and medium to design solutions that reach at the core of human need. As a designer, I embrace the power to improve, innovate, and bring value and meaning into people's interaction with technology.
You are more likely to consume something that's easily accessible and readily available regardless of need, or lack thereof, than to consume something less accessible/available.
I once caught myself eating a snack (free snack that is) given out on a flight when I suddenly realized: first, I wasn't hungry at all, so why am I eating the snack in the first place? Second, I promised myself to not eat this particular snack again because I developed an upset stomach the last time I ate it. Inspite of the reasons I had to not consume this snack in this situation, I still did anyway.
Most people have previous experience with a similar situation--consuming something with no real purpose, need, or thought behind it--not that one needs a purpose for each consumption or action. But why do people often act on impulse? Why do we gravitate towards the things that are easier to attain or do? Sometimes consciously, other times unconsciously.
People are situational. So are interactions (that require people). This is basic nature in human behavior- reacting to artifacts and situations presented in specic temporal instances in the world. People automatically respond to things that bring them perceived pleasure. The more accessible the artifact, and the less energy required to perform the action the more likely an action will occur. Ofcourse the concept is way more complicated than that.
But in summary, ease of access increases the likelihood of consumption or action.
And this is something that designers (in broad terms) can design for, or against. Whether it be increasing or curbing the consumption of food, entertainment, digital device usage, texting and driving, and etc.
In conclusion, make it easy to do and readily available if you want it done more. And anything else, especially that which doesn't lead to meaningful and desirable actions, is a distraction away from the core purpose of your design.